Newtown officials withhold death certificates

Updated 8:54 pm, Sunday, May 19, 2013

NEWTOWN -- More than five months after the Dec. 14 Sandy Hook shootings, the town clerk's office remains steadfast in its refusal to release death certificates of the victims.

That's despite a longstanding state law and more than a century of tradition that allows people to view the documents.

Even the town clerk's website says "Connecticut's Freedom of Information laws require that most of the town records, with the exception of birth and veterans discharge papers, be open for public inspection."

Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia said Friday officials have refused to release the certificates because "we feel its an extreme invasion of privacy for these families."

She added that several family members of victims have asked her not to release the certificates.

Death certificates typically contain information on the cause of death, the decedent's mother's maiden name, and where the person was buried. The person's Social Security number, which is also on the form, is already redacted and not made available to the public.

He was unable to comment further, however, because of a pending complaint before the commission filed against the Newtown Town Clerk's office by the New York Post.

A reporter with the Post filed the complaint in late February after being denied access to the death certificates because the information was "disturbing," according to the complaint.

An attorney representing the town, with the law firm Cohen and Wolf, issued an opinion in response to the Post's request stating that the public is only allowed to view death and marriage certificates that are "at least one hundred years old."

Others, however, scoff at the firm's interpretation of the state law, which states that "any persons 18 year of age or older may purchase certified copies of marriage and death records, and certified copies of birth and fetal deaths what are least one hundred years old."

"The law on the books says death certificates should be released," Smith said.

While local officials were concerned about members of the news media trying to access the death records, Connecticut Town Clerk Association President Joyce Mascena said the documents are used by researchers, people reviewing their family medical history, estate administrators, funeral directors and genealogists.

"We work with this stuff every day," she said.

Smith said reporters have used death certificates to verify information and, in some cases, to uncover information about children who died while under the state's care, deaths that were otherwise hidden from the public.

He said many Sandy Hook parents have been vocal in the months since the shooting in the hopes of preventing a future tragedy.

"They themselves understand the importance of communicating to the greater public, and we shouldn't be trying to hide the documents that confirm what happened," he said.

While Aurelia is pushing for bills that would restrict access to the documents, the measures have yet to be voted on by the General Assembly, which has until June 5 to take action during this session.

One bill making its way through the Legislature would restrict access to a minor's death certificate for six months. Aurelia's original proposal called for a 10-year restriction on the documents, she said.

Mascena said that while the association is not supporting that proposal, it is supporting another bill that would provide a "short form" certificate for public inspection that's similar to the short forms already used for birth records.

"We believe its a good compromise," she said. "There is a lot of personal information on death and marriage records that could be used for identity theft that wouldn't be included on the short form."

State Rep. Mitch Bolinsky, a Republican who represents Newtown, submitted legislation limiting access to death certificates on behalf of Aurelia.

Bolinsky said this week he believes the town clerk is not in violation of state law because "there is pending legislation."

"She is still within that six-month window that is being proposed," he said. "I would argue that she is well within her rights and I support what she's doing."